• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Humanity is causing Global Warming, for sure.

peter grimes

...
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
13,314
Location
Queens, New York
A new report quantified the statistical likelihood that humans are the cause of recent warming. The number they arrived at?

99.999%


:eek:

We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niño, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions.

Our analysis showed that the probability of getting the same run of warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000.

We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results...

Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence.

We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.

Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.

Source: http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911

So what are we going to do about it?
 
99.999% is not 100%.
The "debate" is far from over.
 
Now, what we don't yet have is a good reason to believe that AGW will cause a net harm, in a global economic sense. There will obviously be victims, but that's not the same thing. For me, that's the debate to watch.

That said, I went and bought The Burning Question (which I discussed before I bought it), in the end, I found their thesis very compelling. IF we're going to prevent dangerous AGW, we need to just keep the carbon in the ground. There's an argument to be made we might be okay with burning oil and gas, but not so obviously regarding coal. I recommend the book. Or, at least, the talks.
 
So now the scientific validity of the claim that human-caused GW is occuring, is more stable in science than the second law of thermodynamics?

Doesn't seem particularly scientific, but ok for this sort of internet thread :mischief:

*

Regardless of whether GW is human-caused, or real, or both, to have a definitive study with a 1 in a 100.000 chance of error on this, not even based on physical modelling data, seems a bit of an alarm ring for a poor study. The field of this research is a hybrid anyway, so better stay clear of sensationalist titles and claims, in my view..
 
Where are the crazies? Where's my old chum Basketcase? What's happened to the frothing denialism?
 
so now the scientific validity of the claim that human-caused gw is occuring, is more stable in science than the second law of thermodynamics?
99.999 > 100?
 
99.999 > 100?

No statement is at 100/100. Not even one describing a working flow of heat to less heated objects than the source of heat.
It can change with more parameters, or ability to insert variables we currently do not examine (remember how atoms were named as nondivisible, and later on nuclear effects were studied, rendering them divisible).
 
Golbal Warming is an illuminati hoax!
 
It can change with more parameters, for starters (remember how atoms were named as undivisible, and later on nuclear effects were studied, rendering them divisible).

The only way entropy can be reversed in a system is if the system is open and not isolated. So, where are these isolated systems that manage to have a decrease in entropy? Just one example is all I need.
 
Where are the crazies? Where's my old chum Basketcase? What's happened to the frothing denialism?

Moderator Action: Please remember the restriction against bringing people into the debate who haven't posted yet in the thread. And please avoid insulting language. Thanks!
 
The only way entropy can be reversed in a system is if the system is open and not isolated. So, where are these isolated systems that manage to have a decrease in entropy? Just one example is all I need.
Spontaneous generation of a particle-antiparticle pair in a vacuum?
 
So now the scientific validity of the claim that human-caused GW is occuring, is more stable in science than the second law of thermodynamics?

Doesn't seem particularly scientific, but ok for this sort of internet thread :mischief:

*

Regardless of whether GW is human-caused, or real, or both, to have a definitive study with a 1 in a 100.000 chance of error on this, not even based on physical modelling data, seems a bit of an alarm ring for a poor study. The field of this research is a hybrid anyway, so better stay clear of sensationalist titles and claims, in my view..

Guilty of the sensationalist title, one of the reasons I didn't RD it, though considering Warpus' chimpanzees maybe I should have :hmm:
 
The only way entropy can be reversed in a system is if the system is open and not isolated. So, where are these isolated systems that manage to have a decrease in entropy? Just one example is all I need.

Well, Entropy is the more general term (i presented a very common, and more clear for everyone example tied to most calculations of thermal-based changes in a system, eg when an icecube melts in a glass of water, using also the difference in temperature between the room and the water and ice-cube). Entropy itself, ultimately, is the main term in thermodynamics and related systems (i have been reading some Caratheodory on this too :) ). But Entropy is (afaik this definition is accurate and workable) the degree of diminishment of ability in a system to change. So, according to some phrasings of the second law of Thermodynamics it is argued that the entropy of any system (eg the 'universe', if that can/could be deemed as an isolated system) always increases, and so tends to a maximum.
If the entropy becomes the maximum, then (by definition) the system can no longer have any changes (or "works", to use the physics term).

But those above presuppose a number of things:

1) That we have an actual isolated system as the 'universe'
2) That any phenomena which would instead alter the flow of entropy, are not there at all cause they are not examined by now
Which is why i noted that if we come to include other parameters (don't know which, obviously, if they are examined), then we may find that there is not an adiabatic (ie one-direction) alteration/progression of entropy in a system. Maybe there are more directions, or maybe the system itself is an exception in phenomena more crucial to something as vast as "the universe", which is mentioned in one of the phrasings of the second law of TD :)

Important PS:
I am not into Physics (in fact i rather detest Physics, i like Math though), and so i don't know about Brennan's post either, but naturally i would not be able to name any specific phenomenon (even just in the realm of theory) as an example to a possible need for future changes to the second law of thermodynamics :D
It is useful, though, to note that Entropy was coined as a term to signify the inherent power of the "turning" in the ability of a system to provide energy (work, ergon), much like "energy" means the work/ergon in something's state (eg dynamic, kinetic etc, to use the basic examples from secondary education hated physics).
 
Top Bottom